> What I hear Dan doing by using the words "teach responsibility" is to use> language that others will understand more readily.

I agree. In fact I don't believe very much of what I read in the paper
and he may not of said it at all.

> To assume that SVS or any other school needs to "teach responsibility" is to > asssume that kids aren't responsible and that they need to have this > "responsibility knowledge" poured into them.

I did not mean it this way. I do understand that the students are
responsible for their own educations at Sudbury model schools and I
appreciate and approve of that process for those students whose parents
voluntarily put them in that environment.

> It may be too subtle a semantic difference, but I prefer to think> of kids at Highland or SVS "developing their sense of responsibility" rather> than being "taught responsibility".> > The difference, for me, lies in who is in control of the process.

I did not mean that the teachers were in control at Sudbury though I bet
if the students tried to take over(they are in the majority aren't
they?) they would find out who was in control right quick! But the
students are in a school(Sudbury does call itself a school doesn't it?)
and schools provide teachers to help students(willing self directed
learners in this case) learn or someone is getting ripped off. If
students that want to be taught how to play the banjo or to write Visual
Basic or wonder whether the founding fathers assumed that the citizens
were angels or not cannot find someone to teach them the skills or at
least where to find the information and have to find an outside tutor
then I hope they get a reduction in their tuition for that year.

Even Andy Smallman's newletters from Puget Sound Community School that
is modelled after Sudbury encourages their teachers to write articles
discribing how enjoyable it is to teach willing learners. Dale